1 / 42

Lonely or Misled?

Lonely or Misled?. The Effects of Social Integration on Weapon Carrying among American Adolescents. by. James Moody The Ohio State University. Introduction. "They set themselves completely apart, they didn't talk to anyone else."

elga
Télécharger la présentation

Lonely or Misled?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Lonely or Misled? The Effects of Social Integration on Weapon Carrying among American Adolescents by James Moody The Ohio State University

  2. Introduction "They set themselves completely apart, they didn't talk to anyone else." - Melisa Snow, Columbine High School, of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold "My whole life, I just felt outcasted, alone." - Luke Woodham, Shooter, Perl High School, Mississippi

  3. Introduction • Most media explanations of recent school shootings have focused on psychological or media-influence explanations. • What else can sociologist add to our understanding of why adolescents bring weapons to school? • - Situate students in a multi-level environment • - Treat schools as social systems • - Identify the multiple contents of peer culture • What can weapon carrying tell sociology about adolescent social life? • - Not often studied by delinquency scholars • - qualitatively different meanings of weapons used in different contexts.

  4. Introduction 1. Introduction 2. Weapons in American Schools 3. Schools as Social Systems - Social Integration - Peer Influence 4. Multiple Domains of Adolescent Life - Individual Characteristics - Family - Peers - (School & Community) 5. Data and Methods 6. Results 7. Conclusions & Implications

  5. Weapons in American Schools Percent of Students who Report Carrying Weapons to School Detail: Males Hispanic White Total Black

  6. Weapons in American Schools Percent of Students who Report Carrying Weapons to School Detail: Females Total Black Hispanic White

  7. Weapons in American Schools • Surveys show high variability in weapon prevalence across settings • YRBSS is limited in this regard, with too few points in most settings • Wary students are more likely to under-report to government agencies • Surveys conducted in local areas suggest wider variance • Range as high as 50% in some setting, BUT: • Often target high-risk settings • Widely varying question, sampling and survey methodologies • Difficult to draw uniform conclusions from these data • Add Health provides national coverage with consistent survey methodology • National Sample • CADI design for highest confidentiality

  8. Schools as Social Systems

  9. Schools as Social Systems Social Integration Why should the structure of the relational system matter? • Two insights from J.S. Coleman • - The Adolescent Society • Normative patterns follow relations • - The Production of Social Capital • Closed social structures generate social control • Social Disorganization Literature • - disconnected communities • 1) cannot effectively monitor minors • 2) provide weaker normative socialization • Both resting on basic insights from Durkheim’s work on solidarity

  10. Schools as Social Systems Coleman’s Adolescent Society Social Integration One of the earliest works to treat schools as lives social communities, focusing on the relational structure of the school.

  11. Schools as Social Systems Social Integration Coleman’s Adolescent Society: Integration matters.

  12. Schools as Social Systems Social Integration Social Disorganization • Work on communities & crime stresses the ability of the community to effectively monitor & socialize youth. • Neighborhoods characterized by high mobility, many single-parent families, high rates of renter-occupied housing all lack the kind of social closure needed for effective social control. • Theory rests on network connections, data rests on proxy indicators

  13. Schools as Social Systems Social Integration How do we identify structural cohesion? • The structural essence of social solidarity lies in the relational redundancy of the network. • Coleman’s social closure distinguishes an easily disrupted pattern from one where information flows in multiple directions • The problem with mobility and broken families rests on the inability of social resources to flow through the community networks • Integrated networks admit to many paths connecting people through many alters

  14. Schools as Social Systems Social Integration Coleman’s Social Capital & The Generation of Human Capital

  15. Removal of any point in this network disconnects the set. Each person can control the flow of information through the group. Schools as Social Systems Social Integration • Networks are structurally cohesive if they remain connected even when nodes are removed

  16. If there are multiple ways goods can flow, the group does not depend on a single individual to carry information Schools as Social Systems Social Integration • Networks are structurally cohesive if they remain connected even when nodes are removed

  17. Schools as Social Systems Social Integration • Networks are structurally cohesive if they remain connected even when nodes are removed 2 3 0 1 Node Connectivity

  18. Schools as Social Systems Social Integration

  19. Schools as Social Systems Peer Influence • The majority of research on adolescents and peers • Differential Association & Social Learning Theory • Social Influence models (Friedkin et al) • [expand these points]

  20. Schools as Social Systems Peer Influence Limitations & Extensions • Direct imitation vs. normative context • Self-reports vs. peer reports • Selection vs. influence

  21. Schools as Social Systems Peer Influence • SLT & Internal Mechanisms • SLT focuses on the why of differential association • I want to focus on the content, as such, I largely assume a normative information mechanism.

  22. Adolescent Social Contexts Individual Level Motivation • Fear • Afraid at school • Witness violence • Powerlessness • Future orientation • Self-Confidence • Self Control • Alienation • Not Liked by others • Lonely • Attachment to School

  23. Adolescent Social Contexts Individual Level Opportunity • Opportunity • Autonomy • Time hanging out with friends

  24. Adolescent Social Contexts Individual Level Normative Acceptability • Social Control • Delinquency • School Orientation • Religiosity • Culture & Background • Media Exposure • Gender • Race

  25. Adolescent Social Contexts Family Context Opportunity • Family Monitoring • Family Structure • Family SES • Parent assessment of friends • Access • Gun in the home

  26. Adolescent Social Contexts Family Context Normative Acceptability • Cultural Background • Gun in Home • Family SES • Attachment • Close to Parents • Parents Care

  27. Adolescent Social Contexts Peer Context Motivation • Social Integration • Outsider Position • Out-of-school nominations

  28. Adolescent Social Contexts Peer Context Normative Acceptability • Differential Association • Peer Delinquency • School orientation of peers

  29. Adolescent Social Contexts School & Community Motive, Opportunity & Normative Climate • Schools & Communities can affect each weapon carrying dimension. For example, • Violent schools may generate more fear • Racial tension might promote weapon carrying • Large schools may be more alienating and less capable of monitoring students • Geographically dispersed schools may have weaker social integration • etc. • Specifying & testing for such factors is beyond the scope of the present work. However, school effects must be controlled if we are to have any faith in the within school models. I do this using school-level fixed effects for each model.

  30. The National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health* Data & Methods: Sample summary * a program project designed by J. Richard Udry and Peter S. Bearman, and funded by a grant HD31921 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to the Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, with cooperative funding participation by the following agencies: The National Cancer Institute; The National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; the National Institute on Deafness and other Communication Disorders; the National Institute on Drug Abuse; the National Institute of General Medical Sciences; the National Institute of Mental Health; the Office of AIDS Research, NIH; the Office of Director, NIH; The National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HHS; Office of Minority Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HHS, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, HHS; and the National Science Foundation.

  31. The National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health Data & Methods: Sample summary 1994 - 1994 In-school Questionnaire n = 90,118 1995 Wave 1 In - Home Questionnaire N = 20,745 1996 Wave 2 In - Home Questionnaire N = 14,738 1994 School Administrator Questionnaire N = 164 Alternate Schools

  32. The National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health Data & Methods: Sample summary • I use network data from the In-school survey (1994/5) and behavior measures from the in-home survey (1995). • 113 schools have usable global network data & weights, reducing the sample universe to 13,466 I estimate survey corrected logistic regression models with fixed effect parameters for each school.

  33. Who Carries Weapons to Schools? Prevalence • 16% of males and 5% of females report carrying a weapon to school • This proportion varies somewhat across schools:

  34. 25 20 15 Males Percent Females 10 5 0 Outsiders (8%) Bridges (25%) Members (67%) Who Carries Weapons to Schools? Prevalence

  35. Who Carries Weapons to Schools? Model Results: Individual Motivational Factors Change in an average adolescent’s probability of weapon carrying for a one standard deviation increase in X* 0.08 0.06 0.04 Change in p(Y=1|X) 0.02 0 -0.02 -0.04 Safe Seen Violence College Expectation Self Confidence Not Liked Loneliness School Attachment Self Control * Based on model 6 of table 5

  36. 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 -0.02 Own Decisions Hang w. Friends Smoker Drinker GPA Religiosity Media Who Carries Weapons to Schools? Model Results: Individual Opportunity & Acceptability Factors Change in an average adolescent’s probability of weapon carrying for a one standard deviation increase in X* Change in p(Y=1|X) * Based on model 6 of table 5

  37. Males Females Who Carries Weapons to Schools? Model Results: Individual Acceptability Factors Probability of Carrying a Weapon by Race and Gender* 0.3 0.25 0.2 Probability of carrying a weapon 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 White Black Hispanic Asian Native American Other Race/Ethnicity * Based on model 6 of table 5

  38. Who Carries Weapons to Schools? Model Results: Family Opportunity & Acceptability factors Change in an average adolescent’s probability of weapon carrying for a one standard deviation increase in X* 0.06 0.04 Change in p(Y=1|X) 0.02 0 -0.02 Step family Single Mother Single Father Other Family Gun in home Close to Parents Parents Care Parents Friend * Based on model 6 of table 5

  39. Who Carries Weapons to Schools? Model Results: Peer Effects Network Effects on Weapon Carrying 0.2 Peer Group Deviance 0.16 0.12 Social Outsiders 0.08 School Oriented Peer Group 0.04 0 0.08 0.19 0.3 0.41 0.52 0.63 0.74 0.85 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Peer Context

More Related